(snippet)Graphene Effectively Filters Electrons According to the Direction of Their SpinDecember 26, 2013

New research from MIT shows that graphene can effectively filter electrons according to the direction of their spin, something that cannot be done by any conventional electronic system.

Graphene has become an all-purpose wonder material, spurring armies of researchers to explore new possibilities for this two-dimensional lattice of pure carbon. But new research at MIT has found additional potential for the material by uncovering unexpected features that show up under some extreme conditions — features that could render graphene suitable for exotic uses such as quantum computing.

The research is published this week in the journal Nature, in a paper by professors Pablo Jarillo-Herrero and Ray Ashoori, postdocs Andrea Young and Ben Hunt, graduate student Javier Sanchez-Yamaguchi, and three others. Under an extremely powerful magnetic field and at extremely low temperature, the researchers found, graphene can effectively filter electrons according to the direction of their spin, something that cannot be done by any conventional electronic system.

Under typical conditions, sheets of graphene behave as normal conductors: Apply a voltage, and current flows throughout the two-dimensional flake. If you turn on a magnetic field perpendicular to the graphene flake, however, the behavior changes: Current flows only along the edge, while the bulk remains insulating. Moreover, this current flows only in one direction — clockwise or counterclockwise, depending on the orientation of the magnetic field — in a phenomenon known as the quantum Hall effect.

In the new work, the researchers found that if they applied a second powerful magnetic field — this time in the same plane as the graphene flake — the material’s behavior changes yet again: Electrons can move around the conducting edge in either direction, with electrons that have one kind of spin moving clockwise while those with the opposite spin move counterclockwise....

From the Period 4 paper..more points from Miles that need to be remembered. I forgot completely his mentioning the Arsenic-Copper-Iron connection that Nevyn pointed out.

Miles Mathis wrote:I have now fielded a good question from a reader. He asks, “Don't you have charge being affected in opposite ways here? When channeled charge passes through the axis level, you say it interferes with conduction. But then you say it 'boosts' charge in Selenium. Isn't interference the opposite of boosting? How can that work?” It works because Selenium isn't conducting. You get conduction with elements like Arsenic and Copper, which have different numbers of protons top and bottom. Or you can get magnetic conduction with elements like Iron, but then you need more protons in the axis than in the carousel. Neither of those things is true of Selenium. Therefore, when the crossing charge meets the main axis charge in Selenium, it can only boost the charge. Some charge gets captured, you see, which acts like a boost. Remember, the interference I was talking about with conduction is actually a capturing of charge as well. But because it is captured by charge that is being conducted through the axis instead of charge being channeled into the carousel level, it ends up lowering the total instead of increasing it. Just think about it: we add an equal amount of charge to the top and bottom inner holes. So the north charge is increased by the same amount as the south charge. But the south charge was twice as strong as the north to start with (because the south has two protons pulling in charge while the north has one). Therefore, after adding equal amounts to both, the north charge is no longer half the south. It is a tiny bit more than half. Which means when they meet, we now get a tiny bit more cancellation. The north charge is a tiny bit stronger than it was, so it cancels a bit more than half of the south charge, giving us less conduction. But since Selenium isn't conducting, it doesn't feel experience this cancellation. It only experiences the boost. When elements have equal numbers of protons north, south and in the carousel level, the axis charge is pulled into the carousel level from the nuclear center, and so it never crosses.

Cr6, thanks for the help. My atomic understanding needs plenty of work. I’ve just reread the Selenium quote several times. Here’s my takeaway: 1. I believe that when“conduction” is used in this paragraph, it refers primarily to the main N/S charge flow within the atom; 2. Electric conduction occurs when the main N/S charge current through an element is unobstructed and there is an imbalance in the number of top and bottom protons which favors one predominant direction of charge current - such as we would find with Copper; 3. Magnetic conduction occurs when the main N/S charge current is unobstructed and there is an equal number of top and bottom protons - such as we would find with Iron; 4. Obstructed main channel charge flow occurs when protons occupy the hook positions – the locations of the four single protons in the Selenium diagram shown; 5. Charge traffic through the carousal level does not block the main N/S charge current; 6. Atoms capture charge from the field, Selenium hook position cross currents will add some charge to the main N/S charge current. Note. I’m no doubt missing several points and I’d greatly appreciate corrections.

With respect to the Lifter, I believe charge blockage is occurring between atoms sharing charge channels, between the individual air and Lifter atoms. For example, main upward charge channels from the air just below and entering the aluminum are redirected by the 30kV DC energization horizontally to the left or right, or perhaps in or out of the foil.

Cr6 quoted. Under an extremely powerful magnetic field and at extremely low temperature, the researchers found, graphene can effectively filter electrons according to the direction of their spin, something that cannot be done by any conventional electronic system.

I believe this statement completely agrees with our charge field understanding, atoms are either matter or antimatter. Powerful magnetic field at extremely low temperature sounds a bit oxymoronic. It seems researchers are perfectly aware of electron spin and atomic polarity, and are adopting charge field ideas whatever their operating theory happens to be.

Cr6 quoted. Under typical conditions, sheets of graphene behave as normal conductors: Apply a voltage, and current flows throughout the two-dimensional flake. If you turn on a magnetic field perpendicular to the graphene flake, however, the behavior changes: Current flows only along the edge, while the bulk remains insulating. Moreover, this current flows only in one direction — clockwise or counterclockwise, depending on the orientation of the magnetic field — in a phenomenon known as the quantum Hall effect.

That is a perfect example of charge “blockage”, turning the charge thereby adding to the charge’s path length. Under high energetic conditions, with orthogonal magnetic field applied, charge current may be “turned” from vertical to horizontal, along the horizontal edges of the Lifters. A very nice possibility. With the Lifter, there’s no magnetic field. Can Al emit a magnetic field? What kind of current will the 30kV DC generate in the Al?

Biefeld-Brown effect, i.e., when a high voltage (~30 kV) is applied to the electrodes of an asymmetric capacitor, a net force is observed on the capacitor. By asymmetric, we mean that the physical dimensions of the two electrodes are different, i.e., one electrode is large and the other small. According to the classical Biefeld-Brown effect.

The Biefeld-Brown Effect is expressed by the paper’s title - Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor.The paper includes background of the work done by Thomas Townsend Brown. Brown initially believed he had discovered an electromagnetic control of gravity. Brown had many followers, Fran De Aquino comes to mind. A few technical details.

the largest force on the capacitor is in a direction from the negative (larger) electrode toward the positive (smaller) electrode. … In fact, these experiments indicate that there is a force on the capacitor independent of polarity of applied voltage.

And a fine admittance of the lack of a theoretical explanation.

At the present time, there is no accepted detailed theory to explain this effect, and hence the potential of this effect for applications is unknown.

The authors built their own Lifters to verify the veracity of the device, including an aluminum covered Styrofoam lunch box and straws.

I’ll include a few more excerpts from the paper:

Furthermore, the force on the capacitor always appeared in the direction toward the small electrode—independent of the orientation of the capacitor with respect to the plane of the Earth's surface. The significance of this observation is that the force has nothing to do with the gravitational field of the Earth and nothing to do with the electric potential of the Earth's atmosphere. (There are numerous claims on the Internet that asymmetric capacitors are antigravity devices, or devices that demonstrate that there is an interaction of gravity with electric phenomena, called.)

I’m including the following because rather than saying the effect works in a vacuum or not, it would be good to know precisely when these effects are observed in order to, as they state, determine the effect’s possible usefulness in the future.

As discussed, the most pressing question is whether the Biefeld-Brown effect occurs in vacuum. It seems that Brown may have tested the effect in vacuum, but not reported it (Appendix B). More recently, there is some preliminary work that tested the effect in vacuum, and claimed that there is some small effect—smaller than the force observed in air; see the second report cited in reference [2]. Further work must be done to understand the effect in detail. A set of experiments must be performed in vacuum, and at various gas pressures, to determine the force versus voltage and current. A careful study must be made of the force as a function of gas species and gas pressure. In order to test the thermodynamic theory presented here, the dielectric properties of the gas must be carefully measured. Obtaining such data will be a big step toward developing a theoretical explanation of the effect. On the theoretical side, a microscopic model of the capacitor (for a given geometry) must be constructed, taking into account the complex physics of ionization of air (or other gas) in the presence of high electric fields. Only by understanding the Biefeld-Brown effect in detail can its potential for applications be evaluated.

Virtek Vision International, a market leader in the field of laser-based manufacturing technologies, announced lift off with the first unmanned aerial vehicle! A pioneering research collaboration between the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) and The University of Manchester’s National Graphene Institute (NGI) will result in the world’s first public flights of Prospero, the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with graphene constructed wings.

The flights will take place at Farnborough Air Show 2016 July 15-17, 2016 between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. GMT.

Carlos Pinto, sales territory manager for Virtek, said, “We are happy to be in partnership with the UCLan’s Engineering Innovation Centre (EIC) and their partners, demonstrating continuous innovation within aerospace using graphene. We are excited to see where this new material will go in benefiting aerospace carriers for future projects using graphene applications. On behalf of all of Virtek, congratulations on the hard work and progress you have made on this project and delivering innovation to aerospace.”

Virtek maintains a strong partnership with UCLan, continuing to innovate together in creating benefits to the manufacturing process in the aviation industry. Virtek Laser Projectors have the ability to guide a beam of laser light onto a work surface or part with a high degree of accuracy, speed and precision for applications such as composite ply layup, paint masking, placement of components or materials, and assists with assembly processes.

Billy Beggs, UCLan’s engineering innovation manager, said, “Graphene has huge potential for aerospace. It is incredibly strong, yet lightweight and flexible at the same time. Through our partnership with the National Graphene Institute at The University of Manchester, and alongside a number of Lancashire-based SMEs, we aim to develop a route map that enables graphene to play a key role in the future development of the aviation industry.”

Continue to connect with us @VirtekVision to hear more about “PROSPERO’s” next adventure. Also check out our new website: www.virtek.ca.

Photos accredited and provided by: University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN)

About VirtekVirtek is the global leader in laser templating and quality inspection systems, providing exceptional expertise and engineering for manufacturers around the world. The Virtek name has become synonymous with precision, reliability, and innovation. ....

(Nanowerk News) The School of Engineering at Cardiff University and Haydale have announced new research demonstrating significant improvements in mechanical performance including impact resistance in carbon fibre composites.These results, particularly the increased damage tolerance, could have significant implications for the development of future composite structures, demonstrating the potential in future aircraft design for weight saving and the consequent environmental benefits such as reductions in CO2 emissions.The research was undertaken by the Cardiff School of Engineering with additional funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework programme under the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative. The Clean Sky Initiative is one of the largest existing European research programmes with the aim of accelerating technological advancements in aircraft design and green aviation technology. The project was based on requirements specified by the Centro Italiano Richerche Aerospaziale (CIRA) for developing new composite technologies for Green Regional Aircraft (GRA), and was managed by an integrated team from CIRA, Cardiff School of Engineering and Haydale.

....

Researchers unlock the secrets of dragonfly wings21 August 2017 | Cordelia SealyFrom left to right: The dragonfly B. contaminata. The black rectangles on the wings show the parts of the wings investigated in this study, the nodus. (Top) SEM image of the nodus of the dragonfly. (Middle) Sketch of the nodus. (Bottom) CLSM image of the nodus. The blue color shows the resilin-dominated part.From left to right: The dragonfly B. contaminata. The black rectangles on the wings show the parts of the wings investigated in this study, the nodus. (Top) SEM image of the nodus of the dragonfly. (Middle) Sketch of the nodus. (Bottom) CLSM image of the nodus. The blue color shows the resilin-dominated part.

Since humans have attempted to fly, we have tried to mimic the flapping action of birds and insects. Scientists have continued to design bioinspired micro-air vehicles (MAVs) with flapping wings, but there is a gap between the proficiency of even the most novel flying machine and the simplest insect. That gap can only be addressed by a better understanding of exactly how insect wings work.

Researchers from Kiel University in Germany and the Islamic Azad University in Iran believe that their approach can unlock the design principles of the wings of one of nature’s most remarkable aeronauts, the dragonfly [Rajabi et al., Acta Biomaterialia (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.07.034].

“Dragonflies are known for their impressive flight performance,” says Hamed Rajabi of Kiel University. “They exhibit several flight styles and maneuvers of which many other insects are not capable.”

Although scientists have theorized about the origin of dragonflies’ superior flight capabilities, the role of each wing component in facilitating flight has remained elusive. Now Rajabi and coworkers are taking a new approach to untangling the structure-property-function of different wing components using a combination of wide-field fluorescence microscopy, confocal laser scanning microscopy, micro-computed tomography, scanning electron microscopy, numerical analysis and mechanical testing.

“Dragonfly wings are complex biological composite structures,” explains Rajabi. “At first glance, they appear to consist of two main structural components: an ultrathin membrane supported by reinforcing hollow veins. But, in more detail, they are a unique combination of further specialized components.”

Many of today’s airplanes are made of carbon-fibre composite, but putting graphene in the carbon-fibre coating made the plane’s wings stronger.

It has better impact resistance and is lighter and more drag resistant than a comparable with conventional carbon-fibre wings. The material’s strength means the wings of the plane would need to be coated with only one layer of graphene-infused carbon fibre rather than four or five layers of the conventional composite. If you can build a stronger aircraft with less material, it’s lighter, and you’ll fly farther. In tests, a graphene-enhanced skin on the wings improved impact damage, a standard measurement of potential in-flight damage, by at least 60 percent.

Further advantages of graphene’s relatively high electrical conductivity remain to be tested. Conductivity protects a plane from lightning strikes, and because carbon fibre has low conductivity, current airplane wings usually include a copper mesh that provides this protection. In theory, this copper mesh could be eliminated if graphene is used in the wing, making the plane even lighter and more fuel efficient. Graphene’s conductivity also could be used to electrically de-ice a plane, according to a study released in ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, thus eliminating the equipment costs associated with today’s chemical de-icing technology.

A thin coating of graphene nanoribbons in epoxy developed at Rice University has proven effective at melting ice on a helicopter blade. The coating by the Rice lab may be an effective real-time de-icer for aircraft, wind turbines, transmission lines and other surfaces exposed to winter weather, according to a new paper in the American Chemical Society journal ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces.

On the theoretical side, a microscopic model of the capacitor (for a given geometry) must be constructed, taking into account the complex physics of ionization of air (or other gas) in the presence of high electric fields. Only by understanding the Biefeld-Brown effect in detail can its potential for applications be evaluated.

A challenge! A model must be constructed. Given the charge field, easy, I thought. I had every expectation of using the ideas I’d shared with Cr6; but the first observation from the previous excerpt I’d quoted finally sunk in.

Furthermore, the force on the capacitor always appeared in the direction toward the small electrode—independent of the orientation of the capacitor with respect to the plane of the Earth's surface.

All my thinking up till now has been assuming that the Lifter force has been upward, toward the small electrode, in line with the Earth charge emissions from the Earth directly below. For example, my previous comment, “main upward charge channels from the air just below and entering the aluminum are redirected by the 30kV DC energization horizontally to the left or right, or perhaps in or out of the foil” is wrong. My model needs improvement.

Below, I’ve modified the image below to include its source and title. http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/docs/UnconventionalScience.pdf.Electrostatic Field around Lifter Electrodes. The electrostatic field around – looking down along - two Lifter electrodes are shown. The wire appears as a circle just below the center of the image, about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The aluminum foil covers the rounded top and one of the two - right or left - sides of the thin white rectangle below the wire. Both the wire and aluminum foil are perpendicular - in or out - to the image. The energized electrostatic field shown is oriented with respect to the electrodes and is the same regardless of the direction of the Earth - up may be in any direction.

The image is a slice, or cross section, and an easy way to compare the asymmetric surface areas (line lengths in this diagram) of the thin wire and a two sided wide strip and a rounded top surface edge of the aluminum foil. The foil electrode is charged at its highest energy level, 30kV DC, the top red color shown on the energy scale on the right edge of the image. The wire is at the bottom of the energy scale shown. The separation distance between the electrodes has been chosen to avoid arcing - a breakdown of the air, where sparks bridge the gap between the electrodes - at the desired operating voltage. Two of the three sides of a Lifter may be thought of as coming together in the white rectangle, with little to no interference at the Lifter’s 60 degree corners. I believe the lines of constant electrostatic strength, the wide lodes to the right and left are an accurate representation of the extent and degree of ionization present in the air around and between the electrodes.

I was wrong to believe the important boundary was the bottom air/foil interface (bottom edge center zero mark). I now believe, as the image nicely conveys, the important boundary is the foil/air interface between the electrodes, including the electrostatic charge strength of the ionized air to the sides of the energized foil. The foil is emitting a very high B-photon emission rate in sufficient quantity to ionize the air to the various energization levels shown. This is a demonstration of charge path lengthening, it appears most charge is emitted far to the sides of the foil instead of directly toward the wire. There is a relative charge vacuum at the wire. The result is a slow net motion of the electrodes in the direction of the small electrode regardless of the direction of the Earth’s emission field.

Yeah, Nay? I'll move on, but I'd prefer your ideas to help make this Lifter idea agreeable to all of us..

Yeah, it seems like (to me, obviously) that the Lifter would work better if the aluminum foil were draped across horizontally it in terms of catching upward charge from the Earth. Very interesting that this works with the foil vertical. I'm curious to try one myself, maybe compared both designs and see if the flat method works at all, or how well. Combining them might be interesting too, but of course there are electrical current considerations.

Yeah LTAM, I can definitely see the Lifter force pushing via the Charge field from the electrodes as you state! Nice perspective on that. Like Jared, It makes me want to build one too and then get some pencil leads and create some graphene with scotch tape.

Jared wrote. Yeah, it seems like (to me, obviously) that the Lifter would work better if the aluminum foil were draped across horizontally it in terms of catching upward charge from the Earth.

Thanks for the “Yeah” Jared. Acknowledging what I’d hoped was a legitimate charge field interpretation for the Lifter. However, your words indicate a misunderstanding I’d be remiss to ignore. I don't want you or Cr6 accidentally hurting yourselves. You can re-vote after I describe: 1) the Lifter; 2) the Lifter and the upward charge of the Earth; and 3) the Lifter and a horizontal aluminum foil electrode - in slightly more detail.

J Naudin agrees with the need for a large horizontal electrode orientation in the image above, although I’m not at all sure which way the small electrode lies (360 Degrees?).

With respect to Lifter, the Earth’s emission field holds up the air and creates the ambient background energy level; beyond that, in my charge field estimation, the Earth’s emission field may be disregarded. The Lifter electrodes emit a strong local electrostatic field that overwhelms Earth’s much weaker emissions; I suppose the Lifter reaches a neutral buoyancy in the air. At which time the asymmetric imbalance of the electrodes and direction of charge emitted by the Lifter allow the demonstration of the Biefeld-Brown effect - a force in the direction of the smaller electrode. The Lifter operates within a given Earth emission field. The Lifter is said to exhibit a force toward the smaller electrode regardless of the direction of the Earth. We do not want to catch additional charge from the Earth, all the effective lift is caused by a local asymmetrical high voltage field.

Modifying the Lifter design to rotate the foil electrode from a vertical to a horizontal orientation directly below the wire will lose the Biefeld-Brown effect. Recall in the electrostatic field image that most of the aluminum foil emissions occur perpendicular to the foil – left or right - away from the foil, at the same time increasing distance away from the small wire electrode above. Rotating the foil 90 degrees would point the foil’s majority perpendicular B-photon emissions directly toward the small wire electrode. The resulting direct charge flow would mean that arcing would be a problem. The electrodes would require a greater separation distance. Most importantly, if charge is not turned or blocked, there’s no charge lift.

JNaudin wrote. I am currently in search of sponsors to finance this project.

J. L. Naudin, T. T. Brown, Fran De Aquino, and apparently Tesla too, all believed that gravity could be controlled electromagnetically. That is a false notion, we cannot control gravity. We may, however, control charge in limited ways.

This makes sense to me, from a charge perspective, though I'll of course admit to misunderstanding it in my last comment the and Biefeld-Brown effect. I thought it was the Earth's charge contributing to the lift in a similar (but obviously different) way to a helicopter, only "priming the pump" with the electrical input. I'll study it more so as not to sound like a dumbass on the topic - it's a new one to me.

Let’s look at a Flying Saucer I was told makes regular runs to the planets. Going back to the prototype, about 1958 designed by Otis Carr. I've assembled some images. If you know a better source, please share.

Otis T. Carr has some information in the public domain for anyone who may be technically minded or interested in furthering Carr's research. As a protégé of Nikola Tesla much of Carr's theory, dynamics and mechanics re gravity / anti-gravity are Tesla-based.

According to Carr:"Any vehicle accelerated to an axis rotation relative to its attractive inertial mass, immediately becomes activated by free-space-energy and acts as an independent force... We have shown that a charged body, accelerated to an axis rotation relative to this attractive inertial mass, indicates polarity[3] in a given direction.

The dip-needle points, say, up toward the top of the body. But mount this while rotating body, with its spindle, on another platform and rotate this platform on a spindle, then if the counter-rotation is greater than the inertial forward rotation of the body, a dip-needle on the second platform will point down while the first dip-needle points up, indicating complete relativity of polarity. When the exact counter-rotation matches the forward rotation the body loses its polarity entirely and immediately becomes activated by free-energy (tensor stresses in space) and acts as an independent force... The above-described assembly of counter-rotating charged masses becomes weightless and will escape the immediate attraction of gravitational forces."

by vehicle he means this saucer, right? What is the acctractive inertial mass? How can we say if an axis is relative to it?

immediately becomes activated by free-space-energy and acts as an independent force...

The vehicle acts as a force? What does it mean?

We have shown that a charged body, accelerated to an axis rotation relative to this attractive inertial mass, indicates polarity[3] in a given direction.

By indicates polarity he means we can see the effects of a N/S magnet?

The dip-needle points, say, up toward the top of the body. But mount this while rotating body, with its spindle, on another platform and rotate this platform on a spindle, then if the counter-rotation is greater than the inertial forward rotation of the body, a dip-needle on the second platform will point down while the first dip-needle points up, indicating complete relativity of polarity. When the exact counter-rotation matches the forward rotation the body loses its polarity entirely and immediately becomes activated by free-energy (tensor stresses in space) and acts as an independent force... The above-described assembly of counter-rotating charged masses becomes weightless and will escape the immediate attraction of gravitational forces."

The platform has to always be in contact with the body for it to be weightless? If not, this effect could have no need for the rotating platform.

… When the exact counter-rotation matches the forward rotation the body loses its polarity entirely and immediately becomes activated by free-energy (tensor stresses in space) and acts as an independent force... The above-described assembly of counter-rotating charged masses becomes weightless and will escape the immediate attraction of gravitational forces..."

Ciaolo wrote. Please help, I want to understand but I’m confused... this looks very important. The platform has to always be in contact with the body for it to be weightless? If not, this effect could have no need for the rotating platform.Airman. Ciaolo, I must apologize, I’m in a bit of a quandary myself. Armed with Miles’ papers and charge field perspective, I’m absolutely certain we can understand physical problems better than mainstream. Go ahead, point anywhere and I’ll prove it, just find an interesting subject and we’ll give it go. Real physical details are best, Otis T. Carr’s OTC-X1 turned out to be a scam. I don’t know what, if anything, about it is real.

Here a few of the “facts” I’ve learned are claimed about the operational saucer. It required a blue crystal and was driven by mind control. It travels instantly between planets or wherever you would wish it to go. An advanced technology - Utrons - provide power without wires. The operational vehicles were confiscated by the military. The diagrams I’d provided above were said to have been converted to an amusement park ride in order to make it past a Patent Office ban against flying saucer designs. Otis Carr collected a large sum of money from investors for which he was later convicted.

Interview: "Long John" Nebel (WOR Radio, NY) with Otis Carr, et al. (1959) ---OTC (Otis T. Carr): "Our system utilizes gravity, electromagnetism, and electromotive force and a relative field to get its functional operation. We use an electrified sender. It's a sensor power core. Now this is what we call an accumulator... It is a storage cell, an accumulation of storage cells which provide an electromotive force in the same manner that any known battery produces and electromotive force...

This [the Utron] is a dimensional product. It was designed with the dimensions of space itself. We say it is truly the geometric form of space, because it is completely round and completely square. It has been proven in scientific laboratories that the very smallest unit of mass matter ever photographed in the electron microscope are square in shape... We have applied this principle into an electrified system, which is the power core of our space vehicle. Now what makes this unique and novel from a battery is the fact that this is a piece of moving machinery that rotates. Our average storage battery is an inanimate object set in an inertial spot and then the electromotive force is conducted by wires from this battery to animate some object.

I'm sorry, I cannot take anything he says seriously. If Otis was a con man he could spout jargon with the best of them. I’d be more than happy to examine something of value here, but I’m not seeing it.

Moving on. With respect to rotation as a velocity orthogonal to the Earth’s emission field, you may recall I mentioned discs. I’m afraid Jared’s interest in a charge field lift theory for helicopters may be way too complicated for me to even begin to figure out - discs are much easier to grasp . Can the charge field add to our understanding?

Full disclosure, I love disc. I played Ultimate Frisbee for most days every week for a few years. My specialty was tossing long hang time discs - leading a running target in all kinds of weather. I miss the team. I haven’t watched any sports since ESPN decided not to show a particular Ultimate competition over twenty five years ago.

I grabbed a document describing disc physics from the intertoobs, looks like it could use a charge field review. First I’m posting it in its entirety. Corrections will hopefully follow. With all due respect, please consider,

A flying disc is a little like a cross between a gyroscope and a wing.

A wing works by having the top and bottom sides of different lengths. The air flow moves over the longer surface faster, creating a low pressure region on top of the wing. The higher pressure region underneath the wing tries to move toward the low pressure region, and as a result lifts the wing.

A disc is like a gyroscope in that it uses gyroscopic inertia, the tendency of a gyroscope to keep spinning in the same plane without twisting and turning.

With no spin, a disc is inherently unstable, and with no speed, no lift is generated, so a combination of these factors is needed for a disc to fly. The exact combination varies significantly from disc to disc, since different discs have different "wing" shapes. Combining the wing and the gyroscope also introduces other factors, as the two are not mutually independent.

The most obvious one is a torque on the disc. If the disc is spinning clockwise and moving forward when viewed from the top, then the left side of the disc is moving faster than the right side. There is a corresponding pressure drop over the left side and that side will produce greater lift, and the disc will try to twist clockwise when viewed from behind. As mentioned above, the gyroscopic inertia acts to counter this, and the greater the spin, the higher the inertia.

SpinThere is almost never any reason for not trying to put as much spin as possible on a disc, all other factors being equal. Spin provides stability, so that the disc will continue to fly in the direction it is already flying. A disc that is lacking in spin will tend to "turn over", that is, twist about the axis of flight, and will generally not go as far as one which has more spin. Lack of spin is probably one of the two major problems encountered when trying to throw accurately over any reasonable distance.

One time when too much spin is possible is when throwing some golf discs. Their flight characteristics are such that they have a very narrow window of stability. Too much spin and they can twist one way, and too little spin and they will twist the other. In general, however, too much spin is better countered by other factors in the throw, such as speed and angle of release, rather than by simply spinning the disc less.

Particular discs are termed "overstable", "stable", and "understable" depending on how they to spin and speed. A disc which needs a lot of spin to be stable at a given speed is called "understable", while a disc which needs little spin to be stable at a given speed is called "overstable". "Stable" generally refers to discs which are stable at a wide range of speeds for a given spin.

Most discs can be thrown "understably" or "overstably" by decreasing or increasing the amount of spin put on the disc.

SpeedThe speed of a disc is a major (but not the only) factor in determining how far a disc goes and how quickly it gets there. Unlike spin, it is possible to put too much speed on a disc. The stability of a disc changes as it gets faster, and the stable range of the disc is determined both by the shape of the disc and its spin rate. Most discs used for throwing to other people are stable, that is, they fly flat at a range of speeds. Golf discs on the other hand are usually not very stable - they tend to fly flat only for brief periods during their flight. The rest of the time they are banked either one way or the other.

A generally stable disc thrown with too much speed in relation to the spin will act understably. That is, it will turn over. For this reason, hucking the disc requires plenty of spin and speed. Not enough speed results in the throw landing short, while not enough spin results in the throw diving into the ground.

Most inexperienced players find it easier to get more spin on their backhand, and as a result most inexperienced players will huck on their backhand side.

Rotation AngleThe title does a poor job of explaining what this section is about. Apart from amount of spin, the other major factor in lack of accuracy and distance is the difference between the angle of spin of the disc and the angle of the plane of the disc. The disc often wobbles at the start of its flight, and this is the problem. Ideally, the disc should be spinning flat and wobble-free. If the thrower puts spin on the disc at an angle to the flat plane of the disc, it will wobble and lack control.

This is usually most obvious when teaching beginners the air bounce. For an air bounce, the disc is being thrown downwards, and at release the thumb is dragged across the trailing edge of the disc. This results in a slow upward flight. The thrower’s wrist is at a sharp angle to their arm, and beginners often find that getting the arm to move one way while spinning the disc with their wrist in another direction entirely is very difficult.

The end result is a wobbly throw that lacks spin in the right direction, and hence lacks both stability and the ability to get much distance. Similar problems usually result when teaching the high release backhand.

There is often no easy solution. In the case of air bounces and high release backhand the cure is generally practice. The wrist needs time to learn that it can impart spin at a different angle to that of the arm. In the case of normal throws, the thrower may be swinging the disc in a loop instead of straight back and then straight through. The trick may be just to get them moving the disc straight back on the backswing and straight through on the follow through. This is often harder to do than it sounds. Also, it may not be the problem. Plenty of good players use a slightly loopy backswing, but they are able to get their wrist and arm in the right line just before release, usually just through practice.

Attitude (Pitch)Here we are borrowing a term from aviation to describe one of the angles of release. Pitch refers to how steeply an aircraft is pointed, rotating about an axis through the wings. For a disc, it refers to the angle of release where the front edge of the disc is pointed up or down. Basically the pitch helps determine how far the disc travels, and more importantly, along which path. By keeping the front edge well up the disc will travel well into the air, but will probably stall and float down at the end of the flight. Keeping the front edge down results in a low trajectory, relatively fast flight.

Roll (Bank)Roll, or bank, refers to the angle of the disc rotated about the direction of travel. This means whether the outside edge of the disc is held up or down. The amount of bank on the disc mainly determines the flight path, and can be used to good effect to throw around players who are between thrower and target. The disc will curve in the direction of the lowest edge of the disc.

WindWind can have a marked effect on all of the five factors mentioned above, depending mostly on which direction it is coming from. An important point to remember is that regardless of how much wind there appears to be, there is no wind at ground level, and there is less wind the closet to the ground you are. This means that to avoid the effects of the wind as much as possible it is a good idea to release and keep throws as close to the ground as practicable.

A headwind increases the apparent air speed of the disc. This means that the amount of spin necessary to keep it stable becomes greater. A headwind also reduces the distance possible, and lifts under discs that are pitched with the leading edge up, sending them into the air.

A tailwind conversely decreases the air speed of the disc, but can increase ground speed. While distance may increase there is a drop in lift, which means that the disc needs to be thrown at a higher angle of attack to counteract the wind that tends to push the disc into the ground.

Crosswinds have the most effect on banked discs, either by pushing the raised edge up and lifting the disc, or by pushing down on a lowered edge and possibly making the disc dive into the ground. Crosswinds also make it difficult to keep the disc flat on release, and even experienced players may find it difficult to keep the angle of spin in the plane of the disc..

.OTC-X1 note. I ended my review rather abruptly. I'll try to do a better job here. You probably noticed my main interest is in the Utron, the OTC-X1 “power supply”. Not because it is both square and round - and painful for me to hear O.T.C. describing it so - but because it spins. A large utron mounted with a vertical spin axis will suck in Earth’s vertical emissions at its spin axis and turn that charge horizontally outward – thus creating charge lift. In the amusement ride, the central Utron is absent, replaced with a large vertical (expandable (?)) column, along with any lift it might have created. Without further details, such as wiring, the utron looks like a low friction free mounted flywheel.

Then there are the two outer horizontal counter-rotating frames with: 12 each copper coils and iron cores (electromagnets), 6 smaller utrons, 6 large capacitor plates and supporting structure. These rotating structures must also turn upward charge outward and so cause charge lift, although the utrons, capacitors and electromagnets may greatly alter the nature of the overall energized charge field. The Lifter worked because the entire lifter is energized as an asymmetric capacitor; the distributed electromagnetic components in the OTC-X1 would leave the entire structure subject to the Earth’s charge field alone. By the way, I failed to mention that images I linked to showed copper coils being wired in place – granted, a very difficult task - with such poor craftsmanship, I believe the thing could never have “worked”. No surprise if they didn’t make it to the moon, the amusement ride also seems to have been a bust.

All I see is a public relations fantasy with no substance. Rational description and substantiated claims are lacking, or I’m missing them. If you know of any significant claims I haven’t mentioned or that I should pay closer attention too, please feel free to share.

A flying disc is a little like a cross between a gyroscope and a wing.

I must add. “A disc moves with both a forward velocity, as well as a tangential spin velocity”.

In Billiards, a struck cue ball is given an initial velocity, direction, and spin. Likewise, a flying disc is thrown with initial nose and attack angles, velocity and spin. Like the soft surface of a billiard table slows the cue ball’s motion to just a few cushion rebounds, the air slows the flying disc to just a few tens of meters before it hits the ground.

A wing works by having the top and bottom sides of different lengths. The air flow moves over the longer surface faster, creating a low pressure region on top of the wing. The higher pressure region underneath the wing tries to move toward the low pressure region, and as a result lifts the wing.

In his Lift paper, Miles quickly dispenses with the common belief that unequal top and bottom path lengths cause lift by pointing out there’s no reason for air separated by the wing to rejoin at the same place. I may also point to the fact that one may throw a disc “upside-down” without worrying about unequal path lengths accelerating discs downwards to the earth.

Replace the lined-out above with a portion of Miles’ quote at the top of the thread. (From Lift).

The only way to increase the charge lift is to increase the charge, but since the charge is constant in each area during each interval, the only way to increase charge is to go into as many different areas during the same interval as you can. In other words, you have to move fast, and you have to move perpendicular to the field.

A disc is like a gyroscope in that it uses gyroscopiccreates a spin inertia, the tendency of a gyroscope to keep spinning in the same plane without twisting and turning.

Replaced "uses gyroscopic" with "creates a spin".

With no spin, a disc is inherently unstable, and with no speed, no lift is generated, so a combination of these factors is needed for a disc to fly. The exact combination varies significantly from disc to disc, since different discs have different "wing" shapes. Combining the wing and the gyroscope also introduces other factors, as the two are not mutually independent.

Good to know. So, in the case of flying discs, spin is necessary. How much spin would that be? I offer the observation that a disc’s spin is the same as the disc’s roll rate. For example, if I throw the disc low to roll edgewise along the ground, tilted over a bit like a sail, the disc rolls forward at the same velocity and spin rate as another disc flying through the air just above it. The disc need rotate roughly once for each circumference of forward distance traveled.

The most obvious one is a torque on the disc. If the disc is spinning clockwise and moving forward when viewed from the top, then the left side of the disc is moving faster than the right side. There is a corresponding pressure drop overcharge lift increase felt by the left side and that side will produce greater lift, and the disc will try to twist clockwise when viewed from behind. As mentioned above, the gyroscopic inertia acts to counter this, and the greater the spin, the higher the inertia.

Replaced "pressure drop over" with "charge lift increase felt by".

If spinning can contribute an eighth of the total charge lift a disc received, where is that charge lift felt? In the example given, that would be the left side of the disc which is moving at twice the disc's forward velocity (or ground velocity); the right side of the disc is traveling at zero velocity. Experienced players always release the disc with nose and attack angles specifically allowing for the “torgue” charge rotation. I must admit, finding a charge field basis for the observed “torque” charge rotation (not) is quite satisfying. When the disc is simply spinning on the top of that dude’s finger, all charge lift felt by the spinning disc will be due to rotation alone, and it will be distributed mainly near the disc’s spinning rim.

I do not agree that gyroscopic inertia would counter the so called "torque" charge rotation.

The rest of the document covers technique, I agree with all the remaining comments made in The Physics of Disc Flight.

Your comments are welcome..

Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:17 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Changed and added to sentence ending in zero velocity.)

As Miles states in the Lift paper, the Charge lift felt by an object – say a wing, is determined by the wing’s orthogonal velocity with respect to the earth’s vertical charge emissions. The same definition also applies to Frisbee throwing discs. The disc’s motion is slightly more complicated than a wing’s, in addition to motion forward, the disc is also spinning. For the flying disc, the orthogonal velocity is determined by the sum:

Consider tangential spin alone, let forward velocity equals zero. Each atom within a spinning disc will travel at different velocities determined by their radial position in the disc. The least tangential spin velocity occurs at the disc’s center and the maximum tangential spin velocity occurs at the spinning disc’s edge. Charge lift due to tangential spin velocity alone occurs primarily near the spinning disc’s edge. Without a finger to rest on, the spinning disc will fall downward, maintaining its vertical spin axis, slower than one gravity, probably due to a stable spin and some air resistance.

Now include both linear forward velocity and tangential spin velocity. I’m afraid vector addition is required. I’ll assume that there is one rotation per every circumference of forward distance traveled. In that case, I believe the tangential velocity = the forward velocity = v. Such throws maintain their lifts very well. Given a RHBH (right hand back hand) throw – the disc spins clockwise as it travels forward. Let’s look at the orthogonal velocities of a few of the disc’s locations in detail.

1) 1200, the leading front edge of the disc. The tangential spin velocity at the 1200 position is to the right, orthogonal to the forward velocity yet still orthogonal to the earth’s emission field. The vector sum points in a direction 45 degrees to the right of the forward direction. I believe the magnitude of the resulting orthogonal velocity is given by: Orthogonal velocity = sqrt[forward velocity^2 + tangential velocity^2] = sqrt[2* forward velocity^2 ] = 1.41*forward velocity = 1.41v.

3) 0600, the disc’s back edge, closest to the thrower. As in the 0000 case, the tangential spin velocity is at right angles to the forward velocity, this time in the opposite direction, to the viewer’s left. As in the 0000 case, I believe that we are concerned with only the magnitude (and not the direction) of the vector addition giving the same magnitude orthogonal velocity. Orthogonal velocity = sqrt[forward velocity^2 + tangential velocity^2] = sqrt[2* forward velocity^2 ] = 1.41*forward velocity = 1.41v.

4) 0900, the left edge of the disc. The 0900 position is traveling at forward velocity plus tangential spin velocity. That edge of the disc is traveling at the highest total velocity and so it will receive the largest share of charge lift. Orthogonal velocity = tangential spin velocity + forward velocity = 2*forward velocity = 2v.

As I’ve shown above, the least amount of orthogonal velocity, and zero charge lift occurs at 0300; the most charge lift occurs at at 0900. A RHBH throw develops the highest charge lift along its left edge; a well thrown RHBH disc will slowly rotate in a clockwise (when viewed from behind) direction. A well thrown LHBH – left hand back hand - thrown disc will slowly rotate in a counter-clockwise rotation for the same reasons and at the same rate. In my opinion that is true disc behavior, another confirmation of charge theory.

That rule works over the majority of the thrown disc’s path traveled, the disc loses energy and drops before too long. The initially vertical disc spin axis slowly turns CW, at some point, the spin axis will rotate to a sufficiently horizontal direction where the disc may accelerate into the dirt. Each toss involves various choices and skills, beginning with the disc.

To give the reader a flavor of disc performance - pertaining to variations in charge lift generation capacities, what little there may be, I’ll merely point out a typo and suggest a correction in the The Physics of Disc Flight. The third paragraph and final sentence in the Spin section:

Particular discs are termed "overstable", "stable", and "understable" depending on how they to spinhow quickly they react to spin and speed. A disc which needs a lot of spin to be stable at a given speed is called "understable", while a disc which needs little spin to be stable at a given speed is called "overstable". "Stable" generally refers to discs which are stable at a wide range of speeds for a given spin.

Most discs can be thrown "understably" or "overstably" by decreasing or increasing the amount of spin put on the disc.

I replaced “how they to spin” with “how quickly they react to spin”. I believe quickly refers to the how quickly the disc rotates CW or CCW in reaction to the uneven charge lift. .

A paper....my guess is that only after a researcher begins to really tap into charge field effects ... they either go "Skunkworks" or "Tesla" (quiet without publication)... maybe it is the latter for Evgeny Podkletnov if he really found something. Perhaps, this is what is behind the whole "Russia did it conspiracy" along with Russia's new hypersonic missles... stop if this is too physics-politico-imaginative (lol):

DOI: 10.2174/978160805399511201010169eISBN: 978-1-60805-399-5, 2012ISBN: 978-1-60805-400-8...Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses

Pp. 169-182 (14) 06/01/2012

Evgeny Podkletnov and Giovanni Modanese

Abstract

An attempt has been made in this work to study the scattering of laser light by the gravity-like impulse produced in an impulse gravity generator (IGG) and also an experiment has been conducted in order to determine the propagation speed of the gravity impulse. The light attenuation was found to last between 34 and 48 ns and to increase with voltage, up to a maximum of 7% at 2000 kV. The propagation time of the pulse over a distance of 1211 m was measured recording the response of two identical piezoelectric sensors connected to two synchronized rubidium atomic clocks. The delay was 631 ns, corresponding to a propagation speed of 64c. The theoretical analysis of these results is not simple and requires a quantum picture. Different targets (ballistic pendulums, photons, piezoelectric sensors) appear to be affected by the IGG beam in different ways, possibly reacting to components of the beam which propagate with different velocities. Accordingly, the superluminal correlation between the two sensors does not necessarily imply superluminal information transmission. Using the microscopic model for the emission given in Chapter 5, we also have estimated the cross-sectional density of virtual gravitons in the beam and we have shown that their propagation velocity can not be fixed by the emission process. The predicted rate of graviton-photon scattering is consistent with the observed laser attenuation.

....Update on Podkletnov gravity modification work and rumorsbrian wang | May 17, 2014

For nearly two decades Dr. Podkletnov has been researching the link between gravitation and high-temperature superconductors, and just recently published the peer-review results of new experiments he’s conducted to measure the speed of a force-beam projected by a stationary superconducting apparatus he’s developed.

Podkletnov is well-known for his experiments involving YBCO superconductors, which produced a gravity-shielding effect that was investigated by NASA and has been the subject of many peer-review papers. He describes continuing his experiments in this area, and indicates that he has made continuing progress in creating an antigravity effect that partially shields the mass of objects placed above the rotating disks.

Dr. Podkletnov also describes his “force beam generator” experiment in detail, and provides insights into improvements that he’s made over the last decade to increase the force produced by this experimental gravity-beam. The force beam is generated by passing a high-voltage discharge from a Marx-generator through a YBCO emitter suspended in a magnetic field, and Podkletnov has described it as being powerful enough to knock over objects in the lab, as well as capable of being tuned by even punch holes in solid materials.

Podkletnov recently published a peer-review paper on the force beam experiment entitled “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses” along with co-author Dr. Giovanni Modanese, and describes the findings of his study, which involved measuring the speed of the force-beam using two separate, but cross-correlated measurement techniques. After careful testing, Podkletnov has found the speed of the antigravity impulse to be approximately 64 times the speed of light (64c), which he indicates does not conflict with modern interpretations of Relativity Theory.

Podkletnov describes an antigravity effect generated by rotating magnetic fields that requires no superconductors to be generated, and suggests that it may provide an economical tool for future space & energy research.

Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10cm) wide beam’s ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km. Such a device, observers say, could be adapted for use as an anti-satellite weapon or a ballistic missile shield. Podkletnov declared that any object placed above his rapidly spinning superconducting apparatus lost up to 2% of its weight.

Also during the 1997 telephone interview with Platt, Podkletnov said that he was continuing to work on gravitation, claiming that with new collaborators at an unnamed "chemical research center" in Moscow he has built a new device. He said:

"Normally there are two spheres, and a spark jumps between them. Now imagine the spheres are flat surfaces, superconductors, one of them a coil or O-ring. Under specific conditions, applying resonating fields and composite superconducting coatings, we can organize the energy discharge in such a way that it goes through the center of the electrode, accompanied by gravitation phenomena - reflecting gravitational waves that spread through the walls and hit objects on the floors below, knocking them over...The second generation of flying machines will reflect gravity waves and will be small, light, and fast, like UFOs. I have achieved impulse reflection; now the task is to make it work continuously."[1]

Rumors of this work, presumed to be the results of the experiment described to Platt, appeared in 2001.[11] A paper was finally published in 2003, coauthored by Podkletnov's friend,[1] Italian physicist Giovanni Modanese. The published version of the paper does not include any gravity beams, claiming only that the "force beam" was not "electromagnetic".[12]

...The Physics of Disc Flight. Australia Flying Disc Association, Ultimate Australiahttps://afda.com/the-physics-of-disc-flight...Crosswinds have the most effect on banked discs, either by pushing the raised edge up and lifting the disc, or by pushing down on a lowered edge and possibly making the disc dive into the ground. Crosswinds also make it difficult to keep the disc flat on release, and even experienced players may find it difficult to keep the angle of spin in the plane of the disc..

Hey LTAM,

This guy mentions a "Kutta Condition"??? What do you think?

As the air flow travels across the surface of the disc, many interesting things happen to it. One of these being the Kutta Condition. This condition states that a fluid ( in this case air) will tend to travel along the contour of a curved surface. This effect actually contributes to the lift force.

.Hey Cr6, I've been reading your suggestions. Well, all except for Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses. The abstract and a 2 page promotional flyer is all the information we are given. The cost is $30 for a chapter, or $119 for the book, I’ll pass. I'd be happy to do a line by line of the abstract, but I don’t see sufficient material or detail to work with. Despite all the reading, detailed diagrams were lacking. The one I'd posted previously must do.

I believe I’ve developed the proper physics-politico-imaginative fiction thriller understanding the Podkletnov effect truly deserves, thank you very much. Or were you simply answering my request “does anyone know what happened to the spinning superconducting anti-gravity experiments”? As far as I know, Podkletnov’s experimental findings have never been officially reproduced; on the other hand, everyone seems to know they have.

It turns out this was the perfect time for me to re-read, The Allais Effect and Majorana*. I found it by searching for a superconductor description I’d half recalled. In the Allais paper Miles primarily describes non-standard experimental findings present during solar eclipses. Miles uses the charge field to explain the results. The moon is blocking solar charge, the overall charge field within the eclipse is thereby less diminished, causing a slight weight loss in the eclipse’s shadow.

As a related effect, Miles explains how superconductivity behavior is due to the loss of resistance to the motions of electrons and ions within the superconductor, caused by the fact that the superconductor’s atomic matter is channeling far less charge, thus “freeing” the ions. The superconductor will also present a diminished resistance to earth’s upward moving charge emissions, resulting in a measured weight loss above the superconductor. Miles covers many more details I would urge you to read yourself rather than have me recount.

*186. The Allais Effect and Majorana. http://milesmathis.com/allais.html Plus commentary on LeSage, Podkletnov, NASA, Wiki, and others. Showing how my compound field answers anomalies where other fields do not. 32pp..

Countless arguments between highly intelligent people have been waged (on this very site in fact) as to exactly how lift can be explained in an experimentally and mathematically rigorous way. Taking the potential flow approximation and invoking the experimentally-observed Kutta condition provides a fairly accurate model. A majority of explanations for the Kutta condition involve Nature avoiding the infinite velocities implied by potential flow around a corner of zero radius. This, however, is where the problem arises. No man-made object has a zero radius of curvature.

The stackexchange link includes many more detail and further links.

Like the gentleman states, countless arguments have been made to explain lift. It appears the Kutta Condition is one of the latest standard theory models. It seems that when the Kutta Condition is applied to the sharp lagging edges behind airfoils the tangential velocity of the viscous fluid flowing past the edge become may become infinite. The stackexchange questioner argues that shouldn’t happen in reality. I would agree.

As we have seen, the charge field greatly simplifies lift theory. An objects lift is generated by that object’s velocity orthogonal to the earth’s emission field. That definition allowed me to do simple relative lift calculations between individual points on a forward moving and spinning Frisbee disc using velocity vectors alone. The fact that the thrown disc’s original vertical spin axis slowly rotates CW or CCW at the rate it does, agreeing with my experience and my simple vector analysis convinces me that Miles’ charge field definition agrees with the lift observed.

I agree that there’s probably more to the definition of lift in air. Why is the attack angle critical? Why does the spinning disc fall slower than gravity? Is there higher air pressure below the disc? Or does viscous air above the disc – in contact with the disc’s ridged top surface – resist the spinning disc’s downward motion, preventing the disc from dropping faster?

Here’s another quote from stackexchange:

John Anderson Jr explains in Fundamentals of Aerodynamics (emphasis in text):

... in real life, the way that nature insures the that the flow will leave smoothly at the trailing edge, that is, the mechanism that nature uses to choose the flow... is that the viscous boundary layer remains attached all the way to the trailing edge. Nature enforces the Kutta condition by means of friction. If there were no boundary layer (i.e. no friction), there would be no physical mechanism in the real world to achieve the Kutta condition.

After all that I looked at Mike Abrams’ Lift page. Like the Ultimate spinning disc Frisbee physics page I previously reviewed, Mike believes that the motion of air across the disc will form high air pressure below the disc and low air pressure above the disc, caused by unequal air path lengths. This is the standard theory lift model. The Kutta Condition is somehow an extension of that model – giving the air viscosity along the two path lengths (?).

Once again, Miles’ idea that velocity orthogonal to the earth’s emission field causes lift allows us to do away with that standard theory differential air pressure model.

Sorry, Cr6, just to be safe I suppose we'll need to include air in our charge field lift model before we can say whether there's any value to the Kutta Condition, but I doubt it. .

Fantastic (re-) read LTAM! I have to believe that this paper's contents were lodged somewhere in my sub-conscious after I read it a few years ago and then forgot everything about it. A trace of Miles' paper did remain somewhere in my brain (gravimeters, LeSage, Podkletnov) and I just didn't realize it.

Gulp -- it literally has it all!

Miles Mathis wrote:*186. The Allais Effect and Majorana.http://milesmathis.com/allais.html Plus commentary on LeSage, Podkletnov, NASA, Wiki, and others. Showing how my compound field answers anomalies where other fields do not. 32pp.

Last edited by Cr6 on Fri May 04, 2018 12:38 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrections to a post done after a visit to a bar...)

Here’s a great source document, Chapter two - Aerodynamics of Flight, describing helicopter aeronautics from the US Federal Aviation Administration. In my limited experience FAA documents were mandatory, free, and intended to be the best resources available, more than adequate for the current discussion. Quoting the intro and lift diagram.

Introduction. This chapter presents aerodynamic fundamentals and principles as they apply to helicopters. The content relates to flight operations and performance of normal flight tasks. It covers theory and application of aerodynamics for the pilot, whether in flight training or general flight operations....

Lift. The text basically states that lift is generated on an airfoil by redirecting airflow. This illustration is basically the same that Miles includes in LIFT on a Wing. Quoting Miles' paper, concerning how the shape of the airflow causes lift,

But neither the speed nor the shape can cause more or less pressure without a mechanism. We have never seen a mechanism.

Here is the closest thing we get. The dots stand for air pressure, we have more dots below, therefore more air pressure, therefore lift. Many problems here, … .

Miles goes on to show that the standard model of lift is wrong, charge is the source of lift. I’ll attempt to add to the charge field perspective by examining a quote from chapter 2’s text.

The object may be moving through a stationary fluid, or the fluid may be flowing past a stationary object—these two are effectively identical as, in principle, it is only the frame of reference of the viewer which differs.

That statement is false; it seems to justify the current standard model and it disregards the charge field. Miles has explained that increased charge lift is felt by an object when that object is moving at a velocity orthogonal to Earth’s emission field. That is roughly comparable to the first case, an object moving through a stationary fluid, although I wouldn’t describe the earth’s emission field as a stationary fluid. More importantly, in the second case, air flowing past a stationary object does not generate charge lift between that object and the earth, the lift generated is between the air and the earth. Given the earth’s charge field, the two cases are not equivalent. The viewer’s frame of reference has not distinguished what is receiving charge lift and is beside the point.

In the wind tunnel, it is the air and not the object that receives charge lift. Further, the standard theory models lift according to wind tunnel data. The stationary object encounters increased high velocity air and air emissions which is currently interpreted as lift and drag. Given the charge field, we know that the wind tunnel data obtained is fundamentally wrong, it doesn't actually model the earth's charge lift correctly, nevertheless the data obtained is close enough to be described as fluid air flow. In the wind tunnel the shape of the airfoil must minimize air resistance while providing surfaces that will create real charge lift in an actual aircraft. And so the current mainstream belief that lift is being caused by differential air pressures.

Miles never talks about wings that produce downforce, for example in Formula 1.They produce both downforce and drag (resistance to speed). In F1 there is a mechanism called DRS (drag reduction system) that changes the inclination of a wing to reduce downforce while cars go on certain straights of the circuits, an incentive to overtakes.

Charge is important for lift, don’t you think air pressure difference is also important and plays a role both in lift and downforce?

.Ciaolo wrote. Charge is important for lift, don’t you think air pressure difference is also important and plays a role both in lift and downforce?

Airman. Absolutely, I agree. For almost all intents and purposes the standard air pressure differential lift model is valid. The only problem, as Miles explained, was that the standard model has never provided a mechanism to explain the observed air pressure differentials. That is, until the charge field came along. I know very little of high performance racing, yet I can well appreciate that at highest speeds, road angle and who knows what atmospheric and road conditions the F1 intercepts far more charge lift than the air pressure model can explain, hence the need to prevent the F1 from becoming air borne, by use of lift preventers such as downforce and drag. Also, it’s not enough to say that the earth’s emission field holds up the atmosphere, we need to understand how air changes the charge lift model. Incorporating charge lift into Formula 1 calculations should improve an efficiency or two, or it might result in a radical new development. Who knows what progress the charge field might bring? Would you hire me on as a co-consultant? .

As usual, I’ve bitten off more than I can chew trying to learn helicopter aeronautics in my as of late, often busy schedule. Thinking about propellers at odd times, like the dentist’s chair – just cleaning - aligning and tilting my head to and fro, this way and that, like a helicopter rotor changing direction as the copter maintains a course through sometimes fierce and variable headwinds; sorry. Anyway, a simple demonstration of the existence of the charge field occurred to me at the time, so simple I’m certain it’s been done many times and ways - does anyone know of the results?

Drone in a vacuum. An experiment to prove (or disprove) the existence of the charge field. Place a small drone with several (3-6) vertical spin axis mounted propellers in a large glass container resting on a scale. Remove the air from the container. Use the remote to turn the drone on. What happens? The drone must either: a) Lift. b) Lose weight. c) No change in the drone weight is observed.

That's common sense, everyone knows that propellers work by pulling, or pushing, fluid or air; ergo (?), the drone should just sit there with spinning props and no resulting change in the drone’s weight – the answer would be c. Hold on, real vacuums are impossible to achieve, even a small amount of air may allow the spinning propellers to achieve a small weight reduction – ok, the answer could be b. We, I would argue, should pick a.

Assuming: c is the answer. I believe that would tend to disprove the existence of the charge field. b is the answer. Closer examination must follow. a is the answer. Hu Ahh. The world would notice. One should anchor the drone to the scale’s surface and measure negative weight – lift. One should provide graphs of lift vs rpm. In vacuum and in air. Given only a vacuum, we might also replace the propellers – designed for use in air - and the ever present earth’s charge field - with alternate shaped blades for performance comparisons, or perhaps replace the props with a disc.

Also assuming a. I believe Jared suggested above that charge lift may amount to a third of the lift generated in the atmosphere. I'd suggest that the charge lift alone contributes half the lift strength obtained by propellers rotating through the earth's atmosphere. This will never be resolved without an actual experiment.

I’m tempted to ask Miles what he thinks, but I’ve never done that. I would prefer to have one of you talk me down, pull it apart or agree that the demonstration seems valid. Your comments are welcome.

.Discs. A little review. Frisbee flying discs offer a clear demonstration of charge field mechanics. Spin is essential, a disc thrown without spin catches air, flops and drops; while a disc with spin alone is gyroscopic, allowing it to be balanced on the top of your finger or providing stability to any proper throw. Disc stability is enhanced by the fact that most of the disc’s mass is close to the rim, which provides a handle for the thrower, but with the downside that the built up rim increases the disc’s forward surface area and resulting drag. Charge lift increases with velocity orthogonal to the earth’s emission field; given a disc’s forward and tangential spin velocities, we can calculate the magnitude of the orthogonal velocity at any given location across the disc in vector fashion. The majority of lift for a spinning occurs near the disc’s rim, with little to no charge lift felt at the center of the disc. A RHBH thrown disc in flight feels maximum lift at the 0900 position (spin and forward velocities add), and the least lift at the 0300 position (spin and forward velocities cancel), resulting in a slow CW disc rotation when viewed from behind. The opposite is true for a LHBH throw.

Discs versus propellers. How does a spinning disc compare to spinning propellers? I believe the primary difference lies in the fact that spinning propellers can create thrust - a forward velocity in the direction of the propeller spin axis. A spinning disc does not generate thrust. Propellers are attached to a shaft driven by an engine which can vary the propeller rpms. For ocean vessels or old aircraft, spinning propellers could pull/push fluid or air well enough to accelerate a horizontal forward velocity from zero to maximum, or cruise along at speed. Please note that on the earth’s surface and in a vacuum, horizontal spin axis mounted propellers will not generate thrust or charge lift. Under those same conditions, vertical spin axis mounted propellers or discs will generate increased charge lift. Perhaps it’s fair to say that the only thrust generated by a propeller spinning in a vacuum is equal to the increased charge lift received. We can then calculate the charge lift received for each portion of the “propeller” as was done for the spinning disc.

The idea of the DiscRotor is that of a helicopter with a large circular saucer-like hub and ordinary rotor blades extending out from it. The disco-copter takes off, lands and hovers just as an ordinary whirlybird does; but at high speed the blades retract into the central hub disc, which continues to rotate and so functions as a "rotating circular wing"....

The Disc-Rotor Compound Helicopter program [will] develop a new type of compound helicopter capable of high-efficiency hover, high speed flight, and seamless transition between these flight states. The aircraft will be equipped with a rotating circular wing having blades that can be extended from the disc edge, enabling the aircraft to takeoff and land like a helicopter. Transition from helicopter flight to airplane flight would be achieved by gradually retracting and stowing the blades as the circular wing assumes the task of lifting. An aircraft capable of long range high speed (300-400 kts) and VTOL/hover will provide mobility and responsiveness for troop and cargo insertion, satisfy an ongoing military interest for higher speed VTOL and hover capable vehicles, be survivable and bridge the gap in helicopter escort and insertion missions.

Airman. I've also included a gizmodo article that refers back to the Register article as its source. I included it for convenience in reviewing additional readers’ comments.

Airman. I appreciated but didn’t include any of the first author’s ridicule for this DARPA Funded project. Generally speaking, I would rise to DARPA’s defense by pointing out that someone needs to fund ideas, in this case, according to my current understanding of charge lift, the Disc-Rotor is a flawed concept that deserves some well-intentioned ridicule. I'll try to explain why.

However, during airplane mode, we have a major problem, a spinning circular wing with vertical spin axis cannot maintain or generate a horizontal thrust. Even with blade tips extended, the circular wing cannot lean over to create any additional forward velocity without increasing the aircraft's forward area, downward deflection and drag resisting the forward velocity. It appears the disco-rotor offers poor forward velocity and no forward high-speed velocity capabilities.

Close but no cigar.

Any questions, comments, disagreement? Does anyone know the official results?

P.S.

Yesterday, Airman wrote. Please note that on the earth’s surface and in a vacuum, horizontal spin axis mounted propellers will not generate thrust or charge lift. Under those same conditions, vertical spin axis mounted propellers or discs will generate increased charge lift.

Today, I realize that's not true. I must be more precise. It’s true that in a vacuum and on the earth’s surface, propellers spinning with vertical spin axis interact directly in conjunction or opposition with the earth’s emission field, receiving maximum (or negative maximum) charge lift. That's due to the fact that all vertical spin axis tangents are orthogonal to earth's emissions.

It was wrong for me to say that under the same conditions, a horizontal spin axis will not create charge lift. For example, a horizontal spin axis propeller’s top and bottom edge spin tangent velocities are moving orthogonal to the earth’s emissions. In fact there’s an orthogonal, horizontal component of velocity present over half the horizontal spin. The slightly unequal charge lift felt between the top and bottom edges will turn the horizontal spin into a vertical spin axis..

Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sat May 12, 2018 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

NASA is deploying The Mars Helicopter, "a small, autonomous rotorcraft, [that] will travel with the agency’s Mars 2020 rover mission, currently scheduled to launch in July 2020," the agency announced in a press release.

The problem facing NASA engineers: How to overcome Mars’ relatively thin atmosphere, which would doom any conventional craft. Proving this concept could help with future human exploration of the planet.

The details: "The full 30-day flight test campaign will include up to five flights of incrementally farther flight distances, up to a few hundred meters, and longer durations as long as 90 seconds, over a period. On its first flight, the helicopter will make a short vertical climb to 10 feet (3 meters), where it will hover for about 30 seconds."

It's goals: "The rover will conduct geological assessments of its landing site on Mars, determine the habitability of the environment, search for signs of ancient Martian life, and assess natural resources and hazards for future human explorers."

////////////////////////////////

And here’s a little of the “press-release”.

NASA's Mars Helicopter, a small, autonomous rotorcraft, will travel with the agency's Mars 2020 rover, currently scheduled to launch in July 2020, to demonstrate the viability and potential of heavier-than-air vehicles on the Red Planet. Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech

NASA is sending a helicopter to Mars.The Mars Helicopter, a small, autonomous rotorcraft, will travel with the agency’s Mars 2020 rover mission, currently scheduled to launch in July 2020, to demonstrate the viability and potential of heavier-than-air vehicles on the Red Planet.

…

Mars Helicopter…

“The altitude record for a helicopter flying here on Earth is about 40,000 feet. The atmosphere of Mars is only one percent that of Earth, so when our helicopter is on the Martian surface, it’s already at the Earth equivalent of 100,000 feet up,” said Mimi Aung, Mars Helicopter project manager at JPL. “To make it fly at that low atmospheric density, we had to scrutinize everything, make it as light as possible while being as strong and as powerful as it can possibly be.”

////////////////////////////////

Alien Flying Propellers on Mars eh? Kinda sounds like the Drones in a vacuum experimental suggestion above - with vacuum at 1% earth standard atmosphere. I expect the drone will work, more on that later. Considering the stated 40,000ft helicopter altitude limit here on Earth vice the 100,000ft equivalent atmospheric pressure on Mars, why would they expect the drone to work at all? Wouldn't it be easier to perform the experiment at 1% standard air pressure or vacuum first? After all, they don't know that on its surface, Mars emits a stronger charge field than Earth does on its surface. It's such a tiny experiment. I must be missing something. .